Sane Skeptic Site

Rude behavior on other skeptic site(s)

Hello and welcome to RatSkep! :smile: Why don't you introduce yourself here? ;)

Moderators: DarthHelmet86, campermon

Re: Sane Skeptic Site

#21  Postby ScholasticSpastic » Jan 12, 2016 5:50 pm

I wouldn't describe this site as civil. But I will go so far as to say it's very civil by internet standards. I wouldn't go so far as to describe this site as sane, but it's only mildly schizo-affective by internet standards.

It's all about your standards, and how low you can set them. Mine are sufficiently low that I'm quite happy here.
"You have to be a real asshole to quote yourself."
~ ScholasticSpastic
User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
 
Name: D-Money Sr.
Posts: 6354
Age: 45
Male

Country: Behind Zion's Curtain
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Sane Skeptic Site

#22  Postby Gnu Ordure » Jan 12, 2016 6:26 pm

Briton wrote:
Gnu Ordure wrote:
"Is it fun to talk shite whilst misrepresenting other poster's opinions?"

Only one of those comments was addressed to me, so I'm not reacting personally to this aggression. And six different members are quoted.

Anyway, I wouldn't call this kind of stuff 'civil'. Do you?


I resent you taking my remark out of context and the false accusation of aggression. I was not aggressive, I was retaliating in anger, perhaps wrongly, to what I saw as a gross misrepresentation of my views. Apparently though the comment I was replying to is fine because it doesn't contain a terrible word like 'shite'.


If I watch Dawkins debating with a creationist or a theist, he doesn't tell them they're talking shite, or talking out of their arse. To do so would be uncivil, and somewhat aggressive.

Whereas you say stuff such as: "Nutjob. I don't know why he posts this shite", "What has that piece of prejudiced shite got to do with anything?", and "Such a shame you use your freedom to spout such shite."

That kind of stuff seems uncivil to me, Briton. Jake said in his OP that he was looking for a place where people "can go back and forth with civility and courtesy to each other." So perhaps this isn't the site he's looking for.

I am sorry if you found that upsetting.
Thank you for the apology but no, I'm not upset.
User avatar
Gnu Ordure
 
Posts: 67
Age: 67
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Sane Skeptic Site

#23  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jan 12, 2016 6:28 pm

Well if he is expecting afternoon tea with the vicar he will be disappointed.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 72
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Sane Skeptic Site

#24  Postby Macdoc » Jan 12, 2016 6:36 pm

Gnu Ordure wrote:
If I watch Dawkins debating with a creationist or a theist, he doesn't tell them they're talking shite, or talking out of their arse. To do so would be uncivil, and somewhat aggressive.


I don't think anyone here gives a fuck what Dawkins thinks...wrong example...( there is serious history of bad blood between members here and Dawkins. ).

When the god bothering tramps drop by they get beat on here. There are far more worthwhile topics that actually require some serious discussion and expletives are part of a passionate discussion.

This is NOT RDEF .....and it's far too tolerant of religious discussions as it is in my view...just makes it a fly trap for sky daddy immatures. :nono:
Last edited by Macdoc on Jan 12, 2016 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Sane Skeptic Site

#25  Postby surreptitious57 » Jan 12, 2016 7:15 pm

Gnu Ordure wrote:
Anyway I would not call this kind of stuff civil

Nor would I and the site is known for its intensity of debate which regularly if infrequently can get out of hand
So although not a requirement it does help if one has a thick skin since members will not hold back if you start
talking bollocks. At the same time they are all wonderful human beings and that makes for a great place to be
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10195

Print view this post

Re: Sane Skeptic Site

#26  Postby Macdoc » Jan 12, 2016 7:30 pm

We should point him to Rats http://rationalia.com/forum/search.php? ... cfe4ef0eb7

as a reference :whistle:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Sane Skeptic Site

#27  Postby Gnu Ordure » Jan 12, 2016 8:37 pm

Macdoc wrote:Gnu Ordure wrote:
If I watch Dawkins debating with a creationist or a theist, he doesn't tell them they're talking shite, or talking out of their arse. To do so would be uncivil, and somewhat aggressive.


I don't think anyone here gives a fuck what Dawkins thinks...wrong example...
I wasn't referring to what he says, but the way he says it.

But, in the New Members Welcome Pack I read last week, there is a list of books for me to consider reading, and 30% of them are by Richard Dawkins. So some people here obviously do care about what he thinks?

there is serious history of bad blood between members here and Dawkins.
I'm sorry to hear that.

expletives are part of a passionate discussion.

OK, but there's a difference between swearing at someone and using swearwords for rhetorical effect.

And, people can argue passionately without swearing; it's not actually necessary. Christopher Hitchens argued passionately against religion for over 300 pages of God Is Not Great, without using any expletives at all.
User avatar
Gnu Ordure
 
Posts: 67
Age: 67
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Sane Skeptic Site

#28  Postby Briton » Jan 12, 2016 8:48 pm

Gnu Ordure wrote:If I watch Dawkins debating with a creationist or a theist, he doesn't tell them they're talking shite, or talking out of their arse. To do so would be uncivil, and somewhat aggressive.


I'm not Richard Dawkins. Besides; I temper my behaviour and language to the situation. This is an internet forum for adults.
(BTW...Richard Dawkins has been accused of being aggressive and strident 8-)

Gnu Ordure wrote:Whereas you say stuff such as: "Nutjob. I don't know why he posts this shite", "What has that piece of prejudiced shite got to do with anything?", and "Such a shame you use your freedom to spout such shite."


I checked what I was replying to in those examples you have drawn up from the last few years of me being civil and I don't think people abusing the forum, and being bigoted and prejudiced can expect civility. Did you read what I was replying to? (I understand you don't know of the_5th_ape). Once again you omit the context.

Gnu Ordure wrote:

Jake said in his OP that he was looking for a place where people "can go back and forth with civility and courtesy to each other." So perhaps this isn't the site he's looking for.


If he comes on here and posts the kind of thing that I was replying to in a couple of those examples that you trawled up of me using the uncivilised term 'shite', then I'm not going to promise to meet your standards of 'civility'. As he seems a nice chap though, I very much doubt that would happen.
User avatar
Briton
 
Posts: 4022

Country: UK
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Sane Skeptic Site

#29  Postby Calilasseia » Jan 12, 2016 9:54 pm

Frequently, the invective tends to appear as a result of exasperation. Usually brought about by seeing the usual suspects regurgitate the same cortical excrement for the 397th time, try to pass it off as fact, and ignore the multiple occasions it was utterly destroyed by reference to proper evidence. There are some present here (remaining nameless to protect the guilty) who have been indulging in this duplicitous practice non stop for over three years, and it's a measure of how much we care about discoursive standards, that we continue to keep them around for pedagogical purposes, instead of simply summarily banning them.

On the other hand, if you don't like our approach here, there's a simple experiment you can perform. Go to Uncommon Descent or Rapture Ready, and try defending valid science and reason against the doctrine-motivated lunacy that is endemic to those places. Don't forget to take screenshots though, because not only will you be banned in pretty short order, but all the threads you posted in deleted to hide the evidence.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Sane Skeptic Site

#30  Postby Macdoc » Jan 12, 2016 10:06 pm

But, in the New Members Welcome Pack I read last week, there is a list of books for me to consider reading, and 30% of them are by Richard Dawkins. So some people here obviously do care about what he thinks?


The community has a problem with Dawkin's himself and his treatment of members and mods here and hiw managment of RDEF...ideas in his book stand on their own.

This is far more a pub than a kirk and the language reflects that freewheeling nature ...
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Sane Skeptic Site

#31  Postby Gnu Ordure » Jan 12, 2016 11:02 pm

Calilasseia wrote:Frequently, the invective tends to appear as a result of exasperation. Usually brought about by seeing the usual suspects regurgitate the same cortical excrement for the 397th time, try to pass it off as fact, and ignore the multiple occasions it was utterly destroyed by reference to proper evidence.

OK, but the thread I drew my examples from was about policing in the US, it didn't concern religion or philosophy or metaphysics, and it was a discussion amongst atheists, for the most part (as far as I know).

On the other hand, the topic concerned the shooting and death of a child, so it was an emotional subject to begin with. Maybe that's why people got angry...

On the other hand, if you don't like our approach here,
I didn't say that, Cali. I was merely querying your description of RS as civil in response to Jake's declaration that he's looking for a civil place. It doesn't look civil to me. Or, as civility exists on a spectrum, let's say that RS scores 68/100 on my civilometer (patent pending). Other forums score worse, sure. But some score better.

there's a simple experiment you can perform. Go to Uncommon Descent or Rapture Ready, and try defending valid science and reason against the doctrine-motivated lunacy that is endemic to those places. Don't forget to take screenshots though, because not only will you be banned in pretty short order, but all the threads you posted in deleted to hide the evidence.
What does that experiment have to do with civility? Those places (I assume, I'm not familiar with them) ban people for expressing contrary opinions, not for being uncivil.
User avatar
Gnu Ordure
 
Posts: 67
Age: 67
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Sane Skeptic Site

#32  Postby SafeAsMilk » Jan 12, 2016 11:08 pm

Gnu Ordure wrote:Or, as civility exists on a spectrum, let's say that RS scores 68/100 on my civilometer (patent pending). Other forums score worse, sure. But some score better.

Sounds like you've been to a few forums. Which, do you think, scores the best?
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14645
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Sane Skeptic Site

#33  Postby Gnu Ordure » Jan 12, 2016 11:21 pm

Macdoc wrote:
But, in the New Members Welcome Pack I read last week, there is a list of books for me to consider reading, and 30% of them are by Richard Dawkins. So some people here obviously do care about what he thinks?


The community has a problem with Dawkin's himself and his treatment of members and mods here and hiw managment of RDEF...

Seriously? "The community" has a problem with him? Every single RS member has this problem?

Gosh.

Sounds serious.
User avatar
Gnu Ordure
 
Posts: 67
Age: 67
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Sane Skeptic Site

#34  Postby TopCat » Jan 12, 2016 11:49 pm

Calilasseia wrote:....and it's a measure of how much we care about discoursive standards, that we continue to keep them around for pedagogical purposes, instead of simply summarily banning them....

On the other hand, if you don't like our approach here, there's a simple experiment you can perform....


I'm not entirely convinced of the pedagogical advantage argument, and in any case this is a false dichotomy. It's not a choice of the one or the other.

Jerome's been banned, has he not? And rightly so; I've been here long enough to have witnessed the appalling gish-gallops, and persistent failure to address points raised, to say the least.

But here's the thing:

In my view, it should be perfectly acceptable to call someone a liar, if said accusation can be backed up with convincing evidence. It's the evidence, or lack thereof, that should determine acceptability of any assertion, not least because it can be refuted by counter-evidence.

An arbitrary definition that says "you're lying" is not a personal attack, whereas "you're a liar" is, is no more than weasel words, and ill-befits a forum with 'rational' in its name.

I think it should be against the FUA to persistently fail to answer the question at hand, and/or to change the subject to evade it. If someone takes a position they should either justify it or retract it, or at least say no more. That in itself would stop the Jeromes of this world in their tracks, and a lot of the consequent frustration would simply not arise.

I'm only one voice, I know, and the consensus seems to be to prefer the shouting matches - I don't get it, but there it is.
TopCat
 
Posts: 785
Age: 58
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Sane Skeptic Site

#35  Postby scott1328 » Jan 12, 2016 11:58 pm

The purpose of a discussion forum is to discuss. The FUA is designed to protect the discussion not the members. Name calling is an impediment to discussion as well as other undue personalizations, anything that impedes, derails, or other wise prevents discussion should be in violation of the FUA.

On the other hand, civility almost always promotes discussion and so should be encouraged. Nevertheless, experience has shown that civility does not work when dealing with certain people. Hence the uncivil nature of certain discussions.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8703
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Sane Skeptic Site

#36  Postby SafeAsMilk » Jan 13, 2016 12:22 am

Gnu Ordure wrote:
Macdoc wrote:
But, in the New Members Welcome Pack I read last week, there is a list of books for me to consider reading, and 30% of them are by Richard Dawkins. So some people here obviously do care about what he thinks?


The community has a problem with Dawkin's himself and his treatment of members and mods here and hiw managment of RDEF...

Seriously? "The community" has a problem with him? Every single RS member has this problem?

Gosh.

Sounds serious.

I know, right? It's almost like the forum has some background or something. But we don't let you in until you've taken the oath against Dawkins :mob:
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14645
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Sane Skeptic Site

#37  Postby Thommo » Jan 13, 2016 12:29 am

I still quite like Dawkins. Maybe slightly less than I did, not sure.

Not so keen on Josh "we're all very excited" Timonen though. :whistle:
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

Re: Sane Skeptic Site

#38  Postby Macdoc » Jan 13, 2016 12:40 am

Image yup - there is a reason it's called a Lifeboat.

Many had thousands upon thousands of hours invested in informative posts and effort and the atrocious mismanagement of Dawkin's site executive plus his personal battle and lawsuit with Dawkins left mods and members with a very bitter taste. Many of those posts were rescued and accessible but it di ot leave a good taste. The mess even made the world papers for a time.

An ungodly row: Dawkins sues his disciple - The Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Americas
The Independent
Oct 24, 2010 - Professor Dawkins's charity has accused Mr Timonen of embezzling ... well, and it's hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that he could have ... The web knows Josh as an inspired site designer, but that is just the tip of ...


which of course was lovely fodder for his religious foes. :nono:

The archives are available somewhere around here....certainly the flames have died but the annoyance, resentment lingers. :coffee:

This is still my signature at the Ratz site

I don't give a ratz ass about R Dawkins any further...support your local mods. dawkins debacle survivor.

Image


Personally I don't like proselyzation ......in religion or otherwise and Dawkins has too much preacher in him for my support. :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Sane Skeptic Site

#39  Postby Gnu Ordure » Jan 13, 2016 1:20 am

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Gnu Ordure wrote:
Macdoc wrote:
But, in the New Members Welcome Pack I read last week, there is a list of books for me to consider reading, and 30% of them are by Richard Dawkins. So some people here obviously do care about what he thinks?


The community has a problem with Dawkin's himself and his treatment of members and mods here and hiw managment of RDEF...

Seriously? "The community" has a problem with him? Every single RS member has this problem?

Gosh.

Sounds serious.

I know, right? It's almost like the forum has some background or something. But we don't let you in until you've taken the oath against Dawkins :mob:


LOL.

Sure, the forum has a background. But of what interest is that to potential new members such as Jake (the OP) or me? Do I need to know this history? Is it still relevant to the forum's current raison d'etre?

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Gnu Ordure wrote:Or, as civility exists on a spectrum, let's say that RS scores 68/100 on my civilometer (patent pending). Other forums score worse, sure. But some score better.

Sounds like you've been to a few forums. Which, do you think, scores the best?

It just depends on the members. If all the members of a group want to be civil, then civility ensues. The smaller the number, the more likely it is to be maintained.

Since you ask, the most polite forum I ever joined was a bunch of US episcopalians which included a number of their pastors/priests. Those guys were really nice to each other. They still banned me after six months, though. They didn't like my questions on theodicy, if I remember correctly.



PS: "Safe as milk": I actually have that album on vinyl. Ry Cooder on guitar, right?

And I saw the Captain in '73, at university - at his peak. Happy days.
User avatar
Gnu Ordure
 
Posts: 67
Age: 67
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Sane Skeptic Site

#40  Postby Macdoc » Jan 13, 2016 2:00 am

Sure, the forum has a background. But of what interest is that to potential new members such as Jake (the OP) or me? Do I need to know this history? Is it still relevant to the forum's current raison d'etre?


Never hurts to know and the raison d'etre is an ongoing discussion. It only came up for you due to the Dawkin's reference.

For my part ...there is still too much tolerance of religious crap - too similar an "invitation" to fight religious battles and maunder over ancient religious writings etc.
My preference would be for a freewheeling "freedom from" site....change comes slowly here.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Welcome New Members

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest